The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, August 29, 2014

It is important to note that
these cease-fire demands are not part of Hamas's or Islamic Jihad's
overall strategy, namely to have Israel wiped off the face of the earth.Many foreign journalists who came to cover the war in the Gaza trip
were under the false impression that it was all about improving living
conditions for the Palestinians by opening border crossings and building
an airport and seaport. These journalists really believed that once the
demands of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are accepted, this
would pave the way for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.To understand the true intention of Hamas and its allies, it is
sufficient to follow the statements made by their leaders after the
cease-fire announcement this week. To his credit, Ismail Haniyeh,
Hamas's leader, has never concealed Hamas's desire to destroy Israel.Hamas and its allies see the war in the Gaza Strip as part of there
strategy to destroy Israel. What Hamas and its allies are actually
saying is, "Give us open borders and an airport and seaport so we can
use them to prepare for the next war against Israel."

Statements made by Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and spokesmen
following the announcement of the long-term cease-fire agreement with
Israel this week serve as a reminder of their true intentions and
strategy.

Over the past two months, the two groups, together with several armed
factions in the Gaza Strip, repeatedly announced that their main goal
was to end the "siege" on the Gaza Strip and build their own airport and
seaport.

During the cease-fire talks in Cairo, the Palestinian groups
repeatedly and stubbornly insisted that complying with these demands,
along with opening all the border crossings with the Gaza Strip, was the
only way to end the violence and achieve a long-term cease-fire with
Israel.

However, it is important to note that these cease-fire demands are
not part of Hamas's or Islamic Jihad's overall strategy, namely to have
Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

Hamas and its allies in the Gaza Strip are not only fighting for an
airport and seaport. Nor are they fighting only for the reopening of all
border crossings with Israel and Egypt.

During this war, many seem to have forgotten that Hamas and Islamic
Jihad are actually fighting to "liberate Jerusalem and all Palestine."
The two groups have never recognized Israel's right to exist and
continue to oppose any attempt to make peace with the "Zionist entity."

Many foreign journalists who came to cover the war in the Gaza Strip
were under the false impression that it was all about improving the
living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by opening
border crossings and building an airport and seaport. These journalists
really believed that once the demands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are
accepted, this would pave the way for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians.

Yet these journalists, like many others in the international
community, failed to look at the bigger picture or take into
consideration the context of conflict. Moreover, most of them did not
even seem to be listening to what Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been
stating before and after the war -- that their real goal is to "liberate
all Palestine."

Operation Protective Edge may have ended, but the dream to destroy
Israel is still alive. Even if Hamas and Islamic Jihad eventually get
their own airport and seaport, it is obvious that the two groups are now
more determined than ever to pursue their fight to eliminate Israel,
especially in light of the fact that they feel they have emerged from
the war triumphant.

Masked
Hamas gunmen celebrate their "victory" over Israel before the
international media this week. (Image source: Facebook/Palestinian
Information Center)

The Egypt-brokered cease-fire may achieve some calm for Israelis and
Palestinians in the foreseeable future, particularly in the aftermath of
the severe blow Hamas and Islamic Jihad suffered as a result of
Israel's massive military operation.

Indeed, Hamas and its allies will now be busy rebuilding the damage
in the Gaza Strip. But they will also continue to raise new generations
of Palestinians on glorification of terrorism and jihad, with the hope
of achieving the destruction of Israel, which they view as an alien body
planted by colonialist powers in the Middle East.

To understand the true intentions of Hamas and its allies, it is
sufficient to follow the statements made by their leaders after the
cease-fire announcement earlier this week. Evidently, these statements
show that Hamas and Islamic Jihad see their "victory" in the Gaza Strip
as a first step toward "liberating all Palestine." They also show that
these groups intend to use the new cease-fire to continue preparations
and amass more weapons for what they call "the mother of all battles -
liberating Palestine."

Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah was one of the first figures to
spell out his organization's real intentions. Hours after the cease-fire
announcement, the Lebanon-based Shalah declared: "The war is not over. It will continue in other means and methods."

He went on to warn Palestinians against resuming negotiations with
Israel, saying the Oslo Accords were now "buried under the rubble of the
Gaza Strip" and Palestinians should as of now only endorse the "path of
resistance."

The following day, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh crawled out of the
bunker he had retreated to during the war to declare that "Gaza is now
preparing for the battle of comprehensive liberation."

He told Hamas supporters during a "victory" rally in Gaza City that "Gaza has paved the way for reaching Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque."

To his credit, Haniyeh has never concealed Hamas's desire to destroy Israel. Only days before the war, he said in a speech
before schoolchildren attending a Hamas summer camp that his movement's
strategy "is to liberate the land of Palestine." He added: "Whether we
are in the (Palestinian) government or outside, we will continue to
educate and call for the liberation of all Palestine and the
establishment of a Palestinian state on all the land of Palestine."

For those who do not know, Haniyeh is in fact just repeating Hamas's
charter, which does not accept Israel's right to exist on any part of
what is perceived as Muslim-owned land.

Another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, went even farther by calling
for the establishment of a "Palestine Liberation Army" in wake of the
"victory" scored by his movement and other Palestinian groups during the
war.

Further evidence that this war was not about border crossings or
improving living conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was also
provided by a spokesman for Hamas and several Palestinian groups that
participated in the fighting against Israel.

At a press conference one day after the cease-fire announcement, Abu
Obaida, spokesman for Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Qassam, declared:
"Gaza won because it has revived the hopes of 1.5 billion Arabs and
Muslims that the road to Jerusalem is now open and all we need is to be
united and have a will."

So for Hamas and its allies, the war in the Gaza Strip is not just
about the closure of border crossings or freedom of movement. Instead,
they see the war in the Gaza Strip as part of their strategy to destroy
Israel. What they are actually saying is, "Give us open borders and an
airport and seaport so we can use them to prepare for the next war
against Israel."Khaled Abu ToamehSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4660/gaza-war-over Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by MEMRIIn an article titled "Enough Lies, the Arab Body Politic Created the ISIS Cancer," senior Lebanese journalist Dr. Hisham Melhem, who is Al-Arabiya's Washington bureau head and a correspondent for the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, comes out against the prevalence of conspiracy theories in the Arab world, which, he says, are the Arabs' way of evading responsibility and blaming their problems on others. He focuses on the phenomenon of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS), pointing out that Arabs deal with its atrocities by either denying them or accusing various forces – whether the U.S., Israel or Iran – of creating this organization. After bringing examples, including even from his own paper Al-Nahar, he goes on to explain that the rise radical Islam is the result of decades of tyranny under which Arab societies became "politically and intellectually arid." "The ugly truth," he concludes, "is that the ISIS cancer was produced by a very ill and weak Arab body politic."

The following are excerpts from his article, which was posted August 16, 2014 on Al-Arabiya's English-language website.[1]Hisham Melhem (image: English.alarabiya.net)

"Most people are averse to introspection, and rarely engage in self-criticism. Arabs are no different. However, the political culture that developed in the Arab World in the last 60 years, particularly in countries ruled by autocratic regimes, shifted blame from their catastrophic failures in governance to other external, sinister forces. For these countries, self-criticism has become next to impossible.

"Over time, this legacy has created fertile terrain for conspiracy theories, delusions, self-deception, paranoia and xenophobia. If you read an Arab newspaper or many a website in the region, you will invariably encounter some of these symptoms. Admittedly, sometimes they can be entertaining, but in most cases they are downright ugly, reflecting deep pathologies of fear."

"Conspiracy theories usually reign in undemocratic societies lacking transparent institutions, free and vibrant media, and a political culture that does not shy away from dealing with issues that some may consider taboo. Clinging to conspiracy theories, particularly in times of challenge and uncertainty, becomes attractive because it relieves the believers of any sense of responsibility for what is taking place in their midst, [allowing them to blame it on] hidden and powerful forces beyond their control... Denial of reality and/or responsibility is the other side of conspiracy theories. In this manufactured world others, usually conniving, ill-intentioned and cunning, are behind our travails and not us... Of course, conspiracy theories also exist in open and democratic societies, but they are usually confined to fringe groups..."

Arabs Claim That "ISIS Was Made Everywhere Except In Syria Or Iraq Or By Arabs Generally"

"The shocking and unbridled savagery of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which morphed recently into the Islamic State, is a case in point. The unimaginable brutality of this latest manifestation of Political Islam in the Arab world is too much to bear for many Muslim Arabs. So they either deny the atrocities, claiming that Muslims would never commit such heinous acts (even while the perpetrators of the crimes [themselves] assert that their violence is [meant] to spread their puritanical twisted version of Islam), or resort to the easier option and pick one of the many conspiracy theories that are being peddled by Intelligence agencies, political groups, journalists, or self-appointed guardians of religious sects and ethnic groups...

"Even before its swift and bloody [takeover] of one third of Iraq, [which involved] uprooting and killing Christians and Yazidis and occupying Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, [Arabs claimed that] ISIS was made everywhere except in Syria or Iraq or by Arabs generally. Depending on one’s sectarian background or political leanings, ISIS for many was made in America with a little help – as usual – from the Israelis; others, especially those who loath the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis would say with equal certainty that ISIS was made in Iran, with the conniving of the Syrian regime. But those who support the Iranian-led axis would assert unequivocally that ISIS was made by the U.S. in collaboration with a Gulf state, take your pick: Saudi Arabia or Qatar or even Turkey.

"In this twisted political environment, evidence or proof to buttress an argument are not necessary or are flimsy at best, and when the conspiracy is denied, the denial is considered proof. Since conspiracy theories are usually based on imagined causes and effects and by pointing to those who benefit from a development or an event, it becomes self-evident to some to claim that, just because the Assad regime has diabolically benefitted from the war ISIS has waged against the Free Syrian Army and/or other Islamist opposition groups, then Assad is either behind ISIS or is conniving with it directly and operationally. The recent fighting between ISIS and Assad’s forces in Eastern Syria shows that there is no validity to such claims.

"Those who claim Iran is behind ISIS, because Tehran wants to break up Iraq or keep it in [a state of] perpetual struggle, don’t like to entertain a simpler view which asserts that Iran’s national interests are better served by a stable and allied Iraq that would be dependent on Iran or [would] float in Iran’s political orbit, a reality that would allow Iran to extent its influence from the Gulf to the Mediterranean...

"It is true that Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided arms and funds to Syrian opposition groups, including an array of Islamist organizations in addition to Turkey. [But] the large sums of money given by wealthy individuals from the Gulf as aid, which may have reached the extremists including [the Jabhat] Al-Nusra Front and ISIS early on, does not mean that the Gulf States created ISIS, since these states have already designated ISIS as a terrorist organization. Moreover, they are preventing their nationals from joining the 'Jihad' in Syria and Iraq, and are cooperating with the U.S. Treasury Department to prevent the transfer of funds from private bank accounts in Western countries. Recently, the U.S. Treasury Department designated three Kuwaiti ISIS financial supporters as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

"With ISIS's stunning [advances] in Iraq, which forced the Obama Administration to launch limited air strikes against ISIS military formations... a new conspiracy theory about the origin and evolution of ISIS swept the region, alleging this time that no less an authority than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is asserting that ISIS was made in America... Even by the low standards of conspiracy theories in the Middle East this one was particularly jarring..."

The Rise Of The Islamists Is The Result Of Decades Of Tyranny

"Those who have a more charitable view of the prevalence of conspiracy theories in the ME would point out that, since the Second World War, the U.S. and its allies did engage in clandestine activities and conspiracies, including fomenting coups, influencing elections and collaborating with unsavory characters in the name of combating communism and radicalism, and that the invasion of Iraq was based on baseless allegations regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and [other] lies. That is all true, but that does not excuse the wide tendency of many Arabs, including journalists and government officials, to believe in outlandish conspiracies without bothering to present evidence...

"Ever since the 1967 Arab defeat in the war with Israel, Arab politics have been influenced and mostly shaped by various stripes of Islamists, including the radical and violent groups that constitute the antecedent of Al-Qaeda and ISIS... The rise of the Islamists, such as [Tunisia's] Al-Nahda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the various Salafists, [Egypt's] Jama’a Islamiya, Hizbullah, Hamas and later Al-Qaeda and ISIS has been facilitated by the depredations of the 'secular' Arab regimes, the military strongmen and the one party rule, particularly the depravities of the Baath Party in both Syria and Iraq.

"Over [the] decades, the societies of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Libya and later on Tunisia have been thoroughly wrecked by the brutality and corruption of these regimes. Arab societies gradually became politically and intellectually arid. Progressives, leftists, liberals and enlightened nationalists who [had] dominated political life in many of these societies for decades were hunted, intimidated and deprived of forming any kind of independent political organization. Civil society was gutted, particularly in Syria and Iraq, where the ruling elites controlled every aspect of social and economic life... In the meantime, the Islamists, many of whom were also subjected to the same treatment; either went underground or managed through charities and the Mosque to maintain some political viability and a modicum of organization...

"ISIS Is The First Modern Terrorist Organization That Acts As A Cult"

"It is no longer very useful to talk about Syria and Iraq as unitary states, because many people involved in the various struggles there don’t seem to share a national narrative. It is instructive to observe that those who are ruling Damascus and Baghdad don’t seem to be extremely moved to do something about a force that eliminated their national boundaries and in the process occupied one third of each country and is bent on creating a puritanical Caliphate stretching from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. ISIS is exploiting the rage and alienation of the minority Arab Sunni Iraqis by the increasing sectarian policies pursued by Nouri Maliki for 8 years, just as it is exploiting the anger of the Majority Sunni Arabs in Syria who have been marginalized by the Assad dynasty for more than 40 years.

"For the time being, ISIS will benefit from this deep Sunni disaffection, and time will tell when its growing nihilism and barbaric ritual killings will drive people to rebel against it. ISIS is Al-Qaeda on steroids. ISIS’s standards of depravity (mass executions, beheading, and crucifixions) puts it way beyond the Taliban in Afghanistan. ISIS is the first modern terrorist organization that acts as a cult, and [is] led by a leader who acts like a leader of a secret death cult society, a modern day version of 12th century Hassan-i Sabbah, the Ismaili Persian leader of a small group of zealots sometimes referred to as Hashashin, or 'Assassins,' who waged a campaign of violence and terror from his mountain redoubt in Northern Persia against the Seljuk Turks. The difference now is that ISIS is not ensconced in a mountain redoubt, but has established a primitive form of governance, with bureaucracies, tax collection and religious courts infamous for meting out horrific death sentences.

"ISIS may be the reject of Al-Qaeda, but like Al-Qaeda, it is the illegitimate child of modern political Islam that grew and expanded in what the Arabs refer to as an 'embracing environment.' The ugly truth is that the ISIS cancer was produced by a very ill and weak Arab body politic."

Endnotes:

[1] English.alarabiya.net, August 16, 2014. The text was lightly edited for clarity.MEMRISource: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8129.htm Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by Jamie GlazovA horrifying news report in The Telegraph has confirmed that 1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”Daniel Greenfield’s blog at The Pointdeals with this shameful, outrageous and terrifying story: “UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children.”On this occasion, Frontpage is re-running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation, on this horrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left is facilitating their vicious and barbaric crimes against helpless young girls. The series crystallizes why the horrible details emerging about the discovered 1,400 children victims in Rotherham was a Muslim crime the Left allowed to occur.In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon, ‘Easy Meat,‘ and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”:Part I:Part II:Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/1400-child-victims-of-muslim-rape-gangs-discovered-in-rotherham-uk/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Despite
Hamas losing the military battle, the Israeli government turned victory
into defeat. And yet, there is a glimmer of hope amid the darkness, if
only the Israeli people will take on their political elite.

As yesterday's "open-ended ceasefire"
between Israel and Gazan terrorist groups finally took effect, it was
clear that the Islamists, led by Hamas, had suffered a serious
humiliation.

From the rubble of Gaza, all the false and painfully
predictable bravado could not disguise the fact that Hamas had gone from
brazenly rejecting a return to the terms of the 2012 ceasefire which
followed Operation Pillar of Defense, to running back to the negotiating
table with its tail between its legs to accept an identical proposal
just weeks later.

Those familiar with the comical propensity of
Arab leaders to miraculously convert military defeat into glorious
success know that even if he had been the only man left standing in
Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar would
have given the very same victory speech - and his boss, Khaled Meshaal,
would still have maintained his stubborn insistence that Hamas keep on
fighting, sitting far from the battlefield in the comfort of Qatar.

50
days of fighting cost the lives of 2,144 Gazans (according to Hamas's
own estimates), roughly half of them terrorists, and in a ground
operation which lasted just two weeks the IDF succeeded in destroying
more than 30 "terror tunnels" into Israel which had taken Hamas two
years, and a huge price in both blood and treasure, to construct. Not to
mention the massive damage wrought to the military and civilian
infrastructure in Gaza - which were often one and the same thing thanks
to Hamas and Islamic Jihad's cynical use of human shields - by a
blistering campaign of airstrikes.

The extent of Operation
Protective Edge - which surpassed both Pillar of Defense and Cast Lead
in its scope and severity - took both groups by surprise, as did the
effectiveness of the Iron Dome missile defense system, which was nothing
short of miraculous. But what shook them the most was Israel's ability
to assassinate some of their top leaders (that is, those who weren't
cowering under Shifa Hospital in Gaza).

Just how shaken they were could be seen in the aftermath of Israel's strike, late last week, which eliminated three senior leaders of Hamas's military wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades. The assassination triggered a hysterical response,
with Gaza's Islamist rulers summarily executing more than 25 suspected
informants and arresting at least 150 others in a desperate bid to
discover how on earth Israel had managed to locate and kill them as they
met in a top secret bunker some 30 meters underground. And yet, just
days later, Hamas's top financial official was eliminated as well.

And even if al-Qassam Brigades' head, Mohammed Deif, survived the airstrike which targeted him,
as Hamas is alleging (though providing suspiciously little evidence
of), Israel's ability to track him down despite his best efforts to
remain in the shadows revealed just how much of an edge Israeli
intelligence has over Hamas.

In contrast, after firing or
otherwise losing roughly three quarters of their rocket arsenals, and
after effectively sending dozens of operatives to their deaths in futile
"commando-style" attacks into Israel, the Islamists did not succeed in
bringing Israel to its knees. Without minimizing the tragedy of the 70
Israelis killed - most of whom were soldiers who fell bravely during
fierce house-to-house fighting inside Gaza - it is clear that Israel was
capable of standing strong for much, much longer than they had
expected. Far from crumbling as Hamas had hoped, public support for the
war never faltered.

Indeed, the Prime Minister's Office is correct in stating that Hamas came away with nothing.
Perhaps Meshaal, Haniyeh and co. should have taken a lesson from
Israel's folly during the Second Lebanon War, during which the Olmert
government set an unrealistic target of "destroying Hezbollah" that it
didn't even bother formulating into a coherent strategy, and as a
result, despite the effective deterrence achieved in the north following the war, came out looking like losers.

Similarly,
Hamas's absurd demands, including a total lifting of the blockade on
Gaza (which it didn't get), the building and opening of sea and airports
(which it didn't get), and the release of hundreds of terrorist
prisoners (which it didn't get) were always a recipe for failure.

In
contrast, this time the Israeli government did not talk about
"destroying" or "overthrowing" Hamas from the outset. Limited objectives
were set which granted the political and military leadership the time
and space to both get the job done in the first place without undue
pressure, and have time to spare to decide on its next steps.

And yet, the ceasefire is chiefly an Israeli failure precisely for that reason.

The
valiant residents of southern Israel have endured an unimaginable
measure of suffering for the past decade, and this current flare-up,
like those before it, threatened to push them beyond breaking point. But
it was a suffering they were willing to endure, if only the government
would commit to finally performing its duty to them and ending the
rocket menace once and for all.

Similarly, the courageous soldiers
of the IDF fought valiantly, and 64 of them gave their lives to ensure
that Jewish life could continue in the land of Israel and the people of
the south could finally live in peace.

Instead, by agreeing to a
ceasefire, Netanyahu snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in pursuit
of the one thing he treasures most: the status quo.

The
working-class residents of southern Israel have once again been treated
like second class citizens and, worse, mere cannon-fodder for the
"stability" which the elites so dearly treasure. A "stability" and
"status-quo" which alleviates the dreaded "international pressure", and
all but guarantees that the "drip-drip" of rocket fire will begin once
more in months, a year, three years, or maybe a little longer - but only
on Sderot, Netivot and Be'er Sheva, not Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. No, that
won't happen for even longer still and when it does, the elites will
relieve their guilty consciences by deluding themselves that they are
experiencing even a fraction of the suffering they perpetuated for their
brethren in the south.

What's more, you can be sure that
Hezbollah, Iran, the Islamic State and various other regional foes will
be paying close attention to how this conflict has played out. Some days
ago, one government insider insisted to me that the entire conflict was
a "test-balloon" for Iran to both probe Israel's defenses and political
resilience in the face of attack, as well as the loyalty and
effectiveness of its proxies in Gaza. If that is the case they will have
looked on with astonishment and glee at how a government backed by a
remarkably resilient people, a brave army and exceptional military and
intelligence capabilities caved in to international pressure to avoid
winning.

Of course, the price of "winning" would have been high,
potentially costing the lives of hundreds of soldiers. It would also
have posed tough questions about what to do with Gaza's civilian
population once the terrorists had been comprehensively wiped out, and
dealt a death-blow to the failed "two-state" paradigm which drove Israel
to withdraw from Gaza in the first place.

But here's the thing: victories don't tend to come cheap.

And
let's dismiss for a moment the option of invading Gaza to root-out
terrorism there for good: why wasn't the government even able or willing
to leverage its position of military strength to gain the return of the
bodies of Hadar Goldin and Oren Shaul?

By perversely shunning
victory out of fear, simply to preserve the status quo as soon as
possible, Netanyahu and all those who pushed for a ceasefire were simply
echoing the sentiments of that iconic Israeli failure, Ehud Olmert, who
set the tone for post-Zionist sentiment by (in)famously declaring
that "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are
tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

There is, however, one silver-lining to all of this.

It can be seen in the unprecedented national
unity and resilience of the past few months. It can be seen in the
plummeting popularity of the prime minister after agreeing to the truce.
It can also be seen in the frustrated response to Bibi's decision by
the residents of southern Israel in particular who, in a remarkable show
of defiance, are refusing to return home despite empty guarantees of
security and more promises of "economic incentives", exhibiting their
utter mistrust and contempt for their would-be "guarantors".

Most
of all, it can be seen in the way the best of the best of Israel's men
were willing lay down their lives, transcending the myopic politics of
their leaders for the sake of their land and their nation.

The
people of Israel were robbed of victory, but they can take it back by
rejecting those who - now as so many times in the past - have led this
country aimlessly and without vision, desperate to survive just one more
day but without recognizing that in a region where only the strongest
survive they are dragging us, inch by painful inch, towards defeat.Ari SofferSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15574#.U_-_LmOqbLN Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It
took only a moment for the whole world to become aware of the savagery
and the delight in the slaughter of human beings by Islamist extreme
groups. That moment was the display of a skilled video of a masked
jihadist in black clothes apparently preparing the brutal beheading of
James Foley, the 40-year-old American photo-journalist, on August 19,
2014.

The
whole world has been horrified by the insane, uncivilized behavior of
ISIS (or ISIL) and its rejoicing in its deranged conduct. There could
be no better illustration of the sadistic nature and the level of
barbarity of the Islamic jihadists, ISIS, and others. Yet curiously,
previous public displays of that barbarity attracted little, if any,
notice by the Western media and political leaders in the U.S. and
Europe. Earlier in August, the ISIS terrorists released another video
portraying a number of their group preparing to slaughter with knives
some Syrians, associated with the Free Syrian Army, who were tied up.
This video was almost wholly ignored by the Western media, as were the
killings by ISIS of hundreds of people, attacks on minority groups, and
instillation of a doctrinal Islamic state, a modern caliphate based on
sharia law.

The
Western countries have reacted with some strong verbal language and
mild military action to the murder of Foley. British Prime Minister
David Cameron asserted that Islamic jihadism is not a distant problem,
but rather “our concern here and now.” President Barack Obama spoke of
the United States being “relentless” in reacting to ISIS and also
ordered air strikes in northern Iraq against ISIS to stop its advance.
In addition, the revelation that a considerable contingent of
Europeans, and some Americans, have joined ISIS, and other Islamist
jihadists, and that the murderer of Foley is reputed to be a 23-year-old
London rapper of Egyptian origin, has been a wake-up call to Western
security services about security in their own countries.

It
is heartening that Middle Eastern, as well as Western, countries have
realized the danger to their countries, have condemned the atrocities,
and are preparing to react to them. Countries not always friendly to
each other or to the West are beginning to line up. They now recognize
that the mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan, the jihadists in Algeria
and Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Hamas in
the Gaza Strip all have the same disregard for human life and are
characterized by inhumane zealotry.

Saudi
Arabia has for some time been concerned by the growing power of ISIS,
and of radical Sunnis (takfirism). Its grand mufti, Abdulaziz
al-Sheikh, now refers to ISIS as enemy number one, against which
decisive measures must be taken. The country has already pledged $100
million to combat terrorism in the Middle East. Kuwait has closed the
Islamic charities that it believes give money to the jihadists. Western
observers have long known this to be the case.

Tactical
alliances in the Middle East are forever changing. The Kurdish group
PKK, formerly regarded as a terrorist organization, is welcomed by the
U.S. and the EU, as helpful in fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Turkey,
which has allowed most of ISIS's supplies to come through its
territory, has, at least temporarily, been less hostile to the Kurds in
the north of its country. The loathsome Bashar al-Assad Syrian regime
has been bombing ISIS bases in Syria. Even Qatar, a country that has
substantially funded terrorist groups, is now reconsidering its aid to
them.

Prime
Minister Cameron insisted that immediate action is essential to stem
the onslaught of the exceptional dangerous terrorist movement. There is
no choice but to rise to the challenge. He might have gone farther and
looked to Israel as the example showing the way to meet and overcome
the challenge.

In
this necessary battle against the evil forces of ISIS and of Islamic
jihadists, aspects of Israeli behavior against aggression may be useful,
even if used as a metaphor. One of the elements of that behavior, used
first to deal with attacks on Jews in prewar Europe and now
incorporated into the training of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), is
Krav Maga (Contact Combat).

This
form of combat was devised by a Jewish man named Imrich Lichtenfeld,
born in Budapest, who lived in Bratislava (Slovakia) as a champion boxer
and wrestler. Disturbed by the prevalent anti-Semitism in the 1930s,
he worked out street-fighting tactics to deal with Fascist and Nazi
assaults against Jews, and the anti-Semitic thugs. He left for
Palestine before the Second World War and taught his system to the IDF.
Krav Maga can best described as a combination of wrestling, boxing,
Muay Thai, Kung fu, and Savate. It is a combination of kicks, strikes,
and different forms of punches.

What
is important are the principles of Krav, which, using it as a metaphor,
are valuable for peace in the Middle East. Individuals must first
avoid confrontation and should remove themselves from danger. They must
then try to de-escalate any verbal interaction or dispute. If these do
not succeed, the individuals, or Israel, must start a process not only
of self-defense against all variety of attacks, but also of a vigorous
counter-offensive as soon as possible. The tactics include hitting as
hard as you can, neutralizing the enemy as soon as possible, using what
you can to get the upper hand, and maintaining awareness of
surroundings. They also entail learning to understand the psychology of
confrontation, and identification of potential threats before they
occur.

The
actress Jennifer Lopez was one of the celebrities who trained for a
number of months in the art of Krav Maga. She obtained better starring
roles in her movies as a result. The Western countries should now adopt
the principles of Krav and take part, if not always star, in the fight
against Islamist jihadists.

Poll:
59% say op. not a success, as Netanyahu's approval rating nose-dives
further to a paltry 32%; majority oppose ceasefire. snipClearly
the disappointment is not directed at the IDF, which 83% of the public
said it was satisfied with - instead Israelis apparently are severely
dissatisfied with the political echelon, and Netanyahu at its head.
(snip)Criticism
has been pouring in from all corners over Netanyahu's apparent
unwillingness to take decisive action against Hamas and return security
to residents of the south.Two Israelis
in Kibbutz Nirim were killed by mortar fire an hour before the 7 p.m.
Tuesday ceasefire, as Hamas terrorists launched a final barrage that
lasted up till 15 minutes after the ceasefire went into effect.Former MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari picked apart Netanyahu's
leadership of the operation on Tuesday night, slamming him for "holding
negotiations under fire with a gang of terrorists" - something which
Netanyahu swore he would not do a mere two weeks ago.Ben-Ari likewise quoted Netanyahu, who referenced the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terror group in Iraq and Syria saying "Hamas is ISIS,
ISIS is Hamas." Following through on Netanyahu's comparison, Ben-Ari
said "that means that Netanyahu held negotiations with ISIS."

Like
the majority of Israelis, I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure
out Netanyahu’s strategy. He has talked tough, but then he has seemed
to back down from his own words.

At
the same time, world condemnation of Israel was ramping up to
overflowing levels of hatred during this recent war with Hamas – a war
one could argue Hamas won on several levels.

On
the other hand, the world condemns Israel not matter what she does, so
it seems there is no winning. In which case, best to defend the nation
in the strongest way possible. And from where I sit (as neither a
politician nor a military strategist), it’s not clear Netanyahu has done
that.

And
now, in addition to dealing with Hamas, their missiles, their lethal
force, their psychological warfare, and successful PR campaign, al Qaeda
is just over the Syrian border.

We
cannot afford to take our eyes off of Israel. She is on the bleeding
edge of the fight against Islamic jihad. And while I have doubts about
how Netanyahu has handled the threat from Hamas this summer, I agree
with him that “Hamas is ISIS, ISIS is Hamas.”

And al-Qaeda.

And Hezb’allah.

And Boko Haram.

And al-Nusra.

And all the rest.

The
advance against Israel is an ultimate advance against the United
States. She is like the first wave of troops that get sent into battle.
If she goes down, we’re up next.

Israel has been fighting not only a war with Gaza, but a public relations battle as well. Many have been rightly asking, Where are the Hollywood supporters of Israel who happen to be Jewish?
Some of the biggest, most prominent Israel supporters who are also
Jewish have remained silent – specifically Steven Spielberg, David
Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Barbra Streisand. They do not hesitate
to speak out on supporting Democrats and their causes, yet they have
remained missing in action regarding the latest Gaza conflict.

There
have been too few in Hollywood who are willing to stand up for what
Israel is doing, but many have spoken out against Israel. Spanish
filmmaking icon Pedro Almodovar and hundreds of other Spanish artists
joined actors Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem by signing a letter,
accusing Israel of Genocide. They stated that Israel "humiliates,
detains, and tramples on the rights of the Palestinian population in all
of the West Bank every day, also causing many deaths.” The letter also
referred to the Israel Defense Forces as the "Israel Occupation
Forces."

Did
the prominent Jews in Hollywood mentioned above denounce this? No. It
was actor Jon Voight who responded, “The Palestinians elected Hamas, a
terrorist organization, and they immediately began firing thousands of
rockets into Israel. I am asking all my peers who signed that poison
letter against Israel to examine their motives. Can you take back the
fire of anti-Semitism that is raging all over the world now? You should
hang your heads in shame. You should come forth with deep regrets for
what you did – and ask for forgiveness from the suffering people in
Israel.”

More
Hollywoodites have expressed solidarity with the Palestinians,
including Rihanna, Jonathan Demme, and Selena Gomez. Leave it to
comedian Joan Rivers to say it like it is: “If New Jersey were firing
rockets into New York, we would wipe them out. If we heard they were
digging tunnels from New Jersey to New York, we would get rid of Jersey.
Where did she [Gomez] go to college? Ask her if she knows how to spell
'Palestinian.’"

Radio
talk show host Howard Stern had stood solidly with Israel. “If you are
anti-Israel, you are anti-America," Stern declared last month on his
Sirius XM show. “It’s the only democracy over there. It’s the only
friend we have who’s willing to fight and stand up for what’s right."
And he has asked the question publicly many of us are wondering
privately: “I don’t know why more prominent Hollywood people don’t speak
out about what’s going on there. They’re all afraid.”

Well, maybe not everyone is afraid to remain silent. On August 23, an ad in the Hollywood Reporter, signed by more than 190 Hollywood notables, issued a pro Israel statement
against Hamas. Among those signers were Actors Kelsey Grammer, Sarah
Silverman, Minnie Driver, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Seth Rogen, Josh Charles, and Tony Goldwyn; showrunners Aaron Sorkin,
Diane English, Mayim Bialik, Doug Ellin and Greg Berlanti; directors
Ivan Reitman and William Friedkin; producers Avi Arad, Scooter Braun,
Jerry Weintraub, Avi Lerner; execs Ryan Kavaunagh, Sherry Lansing, and
Amy Pascal; and mogul Haim Saban. The statement read in part, "While we
stand firm in our commitment to peace and justice, we must also stand
firm against ideologies of hatred and genocide which are reflected in
Hamas' charter, Article 7 of which reads, 'There is a Jew hiding behind
me, come on and kill him!' The son of a Hamas founder has also commented
about the true nature of Hamas. Hamas cannot be allowed to rain rockets
on Israeli cities, nor can it be allowed to hold its own people
hostage. Hospitals are for healing, not for hiding weapons. Schools are
for learning, not for launching missiles. Children are our hope, not our
human shields."

Yet,
as notable as this is, even more notable are the names not present.
Barbra Streisand has been a strong supporter of Israel. During the 1967
War she made a speech at the Hollywood Bowl “Rally For Israel’s
Survival.” She saluted “Israel At Thirty” by singing the Hatikva in
1978 and in June 2013 visited Israel while performing in a number of
concerts. So why her silence now, when Israel needs supporters more
than ever?

Steven Spielberg is known for his film Schindler’s List,
which is about someone speaking out and taking action in the face of
adversity. Maybe Spielberg needs to take a lesson from his own script.
Where is the person who, in 2006, during the Second Lebanon War,
donated to Israel one million dollars?

Maybe
those who say they support Israel should understand that silence in
this case is not golden. Israel is being blamed for a war she did not
start. They must understand that Israel is dealing with an enemy who
will not rest until it violently eradicates the Jewish State. They need
to look in the mirror and think about the words of Golda Meir, who,
although addressing the European Ministers, could easily have been
addressing the Hollywood Jews today about their silence: “In doing so,
it brought shame upon itself. Oh, what a victory for terrorism this
is.”

Elise Cooper writes for American Thinker.
She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a
number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

In March Teausant was en route to Canada and near the border texted a friend who told him “if I get myself out of the country everything will be taken care of, they’ll pay for me to go over there, they’ll give me a gun.” He had been in the National Guard but had not brought along a weapon. His friend also told him “They’ll give me everything I could possibly want. They’ll take care of my family, and that I can always come back to America when this is over.” The friend turned out to be an FBI informer, and that led to his arrest.“I’m not going to say that I’m completely innocent and I have no fault in this,” Teausant told the reporters. “Some of it is my fault, yes. But then again I also feel that if the informant hadn’t come along I would have just been making idle boasts and I wouldn’t have done anything.” But there’s more to the story.

Teausant told the reporters that while living in Montana he met a beautiful Muslim woman who would speak only to Muslim men. That spurred his interest in Islam, but it wasn’t only romantic. The zealous convert came to believe his daughter’s day care center was “Zionist.” He wanted to blow it up but claims he told the informant he would only bomb the place when nobody was there. Teausant doesn’t recall discussing any bomb attacks in Los Angeles but on fighting overseas he showed good recall. The newly minted Muslim soon became convinced that the government of Syria needed to be taken down.

“I wanted to go help fight for these people because the New Hampshire slogan is ‘Live Free or Die,’” he told the Bee reporters. “In 1775, we rebelled against Britain because we felt we were being tyrannized and conquered, so we wanted our own freedom. So I felt like I could try and help with that, and give the people freedom that they were fighting for.”

In May his lawyers argued that he would never make it to Syria and never provide support for anyone. He now tells the Bee his support for ISIS was the informer’s suggestion and that “at the time they were not doing the brutal stuff that they’re doing now,” adding that he is “absolutely abhorred at that Foley thing. I did not see that coming.”

That is a stretch, even for someone reportedly diagnosed with schizophrenia. That “Foley thing” would be a beheading, something Islamic jihadists have been doing for centuries for such offenses as being non-Muslim. So despite claims he is “kind of like a cracked egg,” the authorities are sticking to their guns. They told reporters that they reviewed all the evidence, conducted the investigation properly, and are prosecuting the case by the book.

Teausant’s case has drawn no comment from Mohamed Abdul Azeez, leader of the Sacramento Area League of Associated Muslims (SALAM) Islamic Center and frequently interviewed in the local press. The SALAM center co-hosts events with CAIR and in 2009 Abdul Azeez was the recipient of the FBI’s community service award “for preventing violence, creating understanding, bringing people together.”

Last year after the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the Boston Marathon Abdul Azeez lamented the “explosions in Boston,” but told reporters “I don’t want to have to apologize for any crime that’s been committed.” The California Muslim leader said “I feel similar to a gun owner worried about gun laws all the time because people are shooting people, or a Jew who has to worry about the atrocities being committed in Israel.”

The articulate Abdul Azeez, who holds degrees from Ohio State and the University of Chicago, has remained quiet about Boko Haram in Nigeria and the beheading of James Foley by ISIS. Meanwhile, Nicholas Teausant, who wanted to support ISIS and blow up a “Zionist” day care center, remains upbeat.

“Even if they gave me the maximum 15 years I’d come out of prison at 35,” he told the Bee reporters. “That still leaves me the rest of my life to go to college and get a Ph.D., do what I want and be with my family.”

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Hollywood Party and From Mainline to Sideline. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Reason and many other publications. Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/american-isis-supporter-plotted-to-blow-up-zionist-day-care/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A front-page headline was particularly revealing: They (Israel) bombed a mosque in Gaza! Including the exclamation mark!A quick internet search, if you typed "mosque bombing Shiite-Sunni," would give you 782,000 results on July 16.Why did we not hear one single Turkish voice protest the death of 300,000 Muslims in Darfur?Hamas's Charter is must-read fun.

Jihadists keep on saying that "they love death more than we love life." Good for them.

Then there are the proxy jihadists. In 2012, Iran's Revolutionary
Guard Corps commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said that, "Iran provided
the Palestinian organizations the technology to produce Fajr-5 and other
missiles, and they can now produce these missiles themselves in large
quantities." Apparently, Iran will fight Israel down to the last
Palestinian. And so will Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the Sunni mullah. It's
one of the rare qualities Sunni and Shiite Islamists feature: They have
an obsession about fighting Israel at times when their Sunni and Shiite
militants are not busy killing each other.

A recent front-page headline in Turkey's flagship newspaper, Hürriyet,
was particularly revealing: They (Israel) bombed a mosque in Gaza!
Including the exclamation mark! Yes, the exclamation mark, at times when
sectarian mosque bombing is so routine that it cannot find even a few
column inches of space in Muslim newspapers. A quick internet search, if
you typed the words "mosque bombing Shiite-Sunni," would give you
782,000 results on July 16.

"But why do the Turks have the 'Palestine fetish' even
though most of them can't point the Palestinian territories out on a
map? Why did they not raise a finger when, for instance, the mullahs
killed dissident Iranian Muslims? Why did the Turks not raise a finger
when non-Muslim occupying forces killed a million Iraqi Muslims? Why did
we not hear one single Turkish voice protesting the deaths of 300,000
Muslims in Darfur?"Subconsciously (and sadly) the Muslim-Turkish thinking tolerates it
if Muslims kill Muslims; does not tolerate it but does not turn the
world upside down when Christians kill Muslims; pragmatically ignores it
when too-powerful Christians kill Muslims; but is programmed to turn
the world upside down when Jews kill Muslims."

What else, other than that hatred, could bring two otherwise
unmatchable people into precisely the same line of thinking? One is an
Egyptian cleric with the typical bigotry of an Egyptian cleric; and the
other is a Turkish-Kurdish female singer who burst onto the pop song
scene along with a life full of scandals, including drug abuse and a
conviction.

Muhammad al-Zoghbi, the Egyptian cleric, said in a May 3 television
interview that, "not a single Jew will remain on the face of this
earth." The TV program's theme was, "The war on the Jews, their
annihilation or the eradication of their country." But here comes into
the picture the charter of the organization Mr. Erdoğan does not hide
his deep admiration for: Hamas.

Hamas's charter is must-read fun. My favorite section prophesizes
that: "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews,
when the (last) Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and
trees will say, 'O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come
and kill him.'"

Mr. al-Zoghbi's interviewer must be an intellectual man, as he asked
the cleric if the section about speaking trees and stones was an
allegorical expression, to which Mr. al-Zoghbi replied: "Whoever says
this is an allegory (that trees and stones will speak) is wrong. The
trees will actually talk. And the walls as well."

But Yıldız Tilbe, the Turkish-Kurdish pop star, is apparently less
patient than waiting for the moment when the trees and stones will guide
Muslims to the last standing Jew so that they can kill him. Hers is a
nostalgic, probably too-difficult-to-fulfil wish, unless Arabs, Turks or
her Kurdish kin invent the time machine.

On her Twitter account last week, she wrote: "May God bless Hitler.
He did far less (than he should have)." And that: "It will be Muslims
again who will bring the end of Jews." To which the honorable mayor of
Ankara, Melih Gökçek replied: "I applaud you."

(to be continued)

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist
for the Hürriyet Daily News and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum. This
article was originally published in slightly different for form on July
18 in the Hürriyet Daily News.

by Jeffrey HerfOn July 31, 2014, a group of left-leaning historians called
"Historians Against the War" posted an open letter to President Obama
denouncing Israel's actions in the Gaza War and calling for a cut-off of
American military assistance to Israel. On August 13, the letter was posted on the website
of the History News Network. On August 13, the signers reported that
"in less than twenty-four hours over two hundred US, based [sic]
historians had signed the letter." This remarkable turnout depended on
the mobilization of an already existing network of an academic Left that
emerged in opposition to the war in Iraq and that stays in touch via a
website called "The Hawblog."
On August 14, the blog announced that more than a thousand historians
had signed the statement, including a large number from Mexico and
Brazil.

With a brief and unconvincing effort to sound balanced, the statement
deplored "the ongoing attacks against civilians in Gaza and in Israel"
but then turned its fire on Israel for what it called "the
disproportionate harm that the Israeli military, which the United States
has armed and supported for decades, is inflicting on the population of
Gaza." The signers were "profoundly disturbed that Israeli forces are
killing and wounding so many Palestinian children." They found
"unacceptable the failure of United States elected officials to hold
Israel accountable for such an act" and demanded "a cease-fire, the
immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and a permanent end to
the blockade so that its people can resume some semblance of normal
life." Further, they urged the President to suspend U.S. military aid to
Israel until there is assurance that it will no longer be used for the
commission of "war crimes." "As historians," they concluded, "we
recognize this as a moment of acute moral crisis in which it is vitally
important that United States policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict change direction."

It is old news that an academic tenured Left has a foothold in
departments of history in the United States, as well as in Latin
America. Also familiar is the deception involved in presenting oneself
as "against war," as if those who disagree are "for" war, and as if the
issue were one of war or peace rather than anything that has to do with
the substance of the conflict. Nor is it surprising that left-of-center
academics are largely hostile to Israel. Hostility to Israel became a
defining element of what it means to be left-wing since the early 1950s
in the Communist states, and since the late 1960s for the Left in
Western Europe, the United States, and the Third World as well.

Nor is it even surprising that the signers conclude, before they can
possibly have access to the evidence needed to reach this judgment, that
Israel has engaged in "war crimes." The indictment of Israel before the
facts are in, based on the reports of biased and often intimidated
journalists, has been par for the course since the 1960s and has been a
major theme of public discussion at least since the Israeli invasion of
Lebanon in 1982. It has also been standard operating procedure for the
anti-Israeli majority in the UN General Assembly since the 1960s—yet in
this case even UN officials, no constant friends of Israel, have
intimated that Hamas is guilty of war crimes both by intentionally
targeting Israeli civilians and by using the people of the Gaza Strip as
human shields.

Reaching such conclusions on the basis of media reports would be, one
would think, less common among professional historians who are trained
to follow rigorous standard rules of evidence. In fact, in the name of a
political goal these academics have abandoned the standards of their
profession. The evidence to support this conclusion is hard to avoid.

First, demands for a ceasefire before Israel had completed
destruction of the tunnels Hamas was using to infiltrate Israel, or
before it was able to destroy Hamas rocket launchers, fit a familiar
pattern of attacking Israel's efforts to defend itself while ignoring
the reasons why those actions are necessary. Similarly, second, as they
have done before, indignant signers say nothing about the obvious fact
that the Gaza war began with acts of aggression by Hamas, that by July
31 at least 1,500 rockets had been fired at Israel, and by August 13,
the number was over 3,000. Third, and remarkably, in a statement about a
war begun by Hamas the word "Hamas" does not even appear.

Finally, the signers called for ending the Israeli-Egyptian blockade
of Gaza and stopping American military support for Israel in the midst
of the Gaza war as Hamas was still firing rockets. This too was
not surprising, coming as it did from an academic Left that largely
views the exercise of American military power in world affairs as an
evil to be categorically opposed rather than as a necessary part of
preserving a set of key alliances and providing a global common security
good. To call for an end to military aid to Israel obviously helps its
enemy, Hamas. It is also worth noting what the signers did not mention:
the demilitarization of Hamas, for example, which Israel and,
surprisingly, even the sobered leaders of the European Union have made a
condition for lifting the blockade.

The historians' demands were, in short, essentially the same as those
made by Hamas. Satisfying these demands constituted its definition of
victory: Lift the blockade without demilitarization, put Israel in the
dock for alleged war crimes, and preserve Hamas's arsenal so it could
continue to threaten Israel.

The interesting and historically significant aspect of these
historians' response to Hamas's war of aggression is that it offers
clear and depressing evidence of a change in the meaning of leftist
ideology and politics. The leftism of the Historians Against the War
statement reflects an opposition to some reactionary movements but not
others. Movements of the extreme Right that are anti-Semitic, sexist,
homophobic, and, of course, anti-democratic are acceptable so long as
they aim to destroy the state of Israel and attack "U.S. imperialism."
This soft spot for reactionary Islamist ideology is partly the result of
years of denial and timidity in the face of bogus accusations of
"Islamophobia." The moods expressed in the historians' statement lead to
forgiveness for sins committed by those attacking Israel—sins that
would be denounced if they came from political currents in Europe and
the United States.

In politics, we distinguish between subjective intentions and
objective consequences. Subjectively, the signers present themselves as
simple people on the side of the angels. They merely oppose
"disproportionate" loss of civilian life and Israel's "war crimes" in
Gaza. Yet the signers are sophisticated intellectuals, and many are
veteran senior scholars who understand very well that "objectively" the
impact of their statement is to assist Hamas in winning what it would
define as victory in the war it launched against Israel. The signers
know very well that Hamas uses the civilian population as human shields
and displays the deaths of civilians as a major strategy in its effort
to defeat Israel in the court of world public opinion, erode Israel's
standing in Europe, and perhaps even break or weaken the alliance with
the United States. As objective partisans of one side of the conflict,
they are fine with all that.

Some critics of the statement have pointed out that the vast majority
of the signers have no expertise in the Middle East, which is true
enough. Yet it takes no expertise in the Middle East to read and
interpret the Hamas Covenant of 1988. (I did so in an essay for this magazine.) The Hamas Charter has been available at the Yale Law School's Avalon Project website
for at least a decade. The Hamas authors wrote very clearly. At that
website, the signers, some of whom included historians of modern
European and German history, could read the Hamas authors' selections
from the Koran and Muslim commentaries to offer theological
justifications for raw, murderous Jew-hatred. They could read the Hamas
authors' repetition of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories reminiscent of
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They would see that Hamas
has no interest whatsoever in a two-state solution but has from its
origins been dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel by war.
With a few mouse clicks, they could read a document that included
phrases, some word for word, that would remind them of the rhetoric and
propaganda of the fascists and Nazis that some of these historians have
written about for decades.

"A refusal to speak frankly about the ideas animating Hamas and
other Islamist terrorist organizations has become a litmus test for
left-wing identity."

The signers of the "Historians Against the War" statement about the
Gaza war can take one of only two positions. The first would be an
argument from ignorance; that is, that they had not read the Hamas
Covenant and have paid no attention to Hamas' repeated declarations of
intent to destroy the state of Israel and to its numerous expressions of
open Jew-hatred, even though they are readily available on the internet
in English. Yet as the signers are speaking "as historians," it would
be insulting to suggest that they have no idea that Hamas is inspired by
a kind of religious fanaticism that in every other context they find
repellent.

So let's give the signers the benefit of the doubt and make the
second assumption, that the signers are sophisticated and well-informed,
that they have read the Hamas Covenant, have followed Hamas's repeated
expressions of Jew-hatred, and understand that Hamas has used the years
since it seized power in Gaza to buy rockets, train young men how to use
them, and spent millions on tunnel construction that could have been
used instead to build schools, hospitals, and housing for the civilians
population in Gaza. What, then, is the meaning of these historians'
letter? It is that the "Hawblog" statement of July 31 was not a
statement "against war"; it was objectively and, for some, subjectively
an effort in favor of the war that Hamas launched against Israel.

The emergence of this objectively pro-Hamas and pro-war Left is an
historically significant event. It breaks with both the
self-understanding and public image of a Left that carried a banner of
anti-fascism. It rests on a double standard of critique, a critical one
applied to the extreme Right in the West and another, apologetic
standard applied to similarly based rightist Islamist movements.

For this historian, the "Historians Against the War" statement of
summer 2014 recalls the policy of the Comintern during the Hitler-Stalin
pact of 1939–1941. In that two-year period, as Hitler invaded and
occupied all of continental Europe except the Soviet Union, and island
Britain fought on alone, the Communist Parties denounced "Anglo-American
imperialism", called Franklin Roosevelt a "war monger" for aiding
Britain and abandoned verbal attacks on Nazi Germany. The Communist
Parties only returned to the previous anti-fascist stance of the Popular
Front era because Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Had
Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, presumably the Communists Parties
would have opposed a strictly Anglo-American attack on Nazi Germany.

The years of the Hitler-Stalin pact offer an often forgotten and
embarrassing case of the Left making common cause objectively with
fascism and Nazism. It was only in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's
massive contribution to the defeat of Nazism that "anti-fascism" again
became embedded in the Left's essence and public presentation. The
"Historians against the War" statement of July 31 revives the spirit of
the infamous years of 1939-41, but does so with a confidence that many
decades of Communist and Western leftist attacks on Israel and on
Zionism, along with expressions of "solidarity with the Palestinian
people," has fostered. The habits of mind and emotion cultivated in the
Western Left in the era of the secular PLO's terrorist campaigns of the
1960s to 1980s have remained strikingly intact, even though the terror
now comes from the Islamist extreme Right rather than the extreme Left.

"It was probably only a matter of time before seven decades of
leftist antagonism to Israel would lead to waging political warfare in
support of an organization known for terrorist attacks against
civilians, religious fanaticism, and anti-Semitism of a most foul and
familiar sort. In summer 2014, that moment has arrived."

Efforts by the literary scholar Judith Butler several years ago to
include Hamas in the camp of the global Left illustrated a lack of
historical knowledge that is simply not acceptable among professional
historians. But Procrustean distortion in the name of a cause is apt to
overwhelm any fealty to professional standards among ideologues of all
stripes. In every sense of the word, Hamas is an organization of the
extreme Right and rejects all of the values that at one point defined
leftist politics ever since the Enlightenment, the French Revolution,
and large parts of the secular Left of the 20th century. This
summer, the "Hawblog" group statement has offered support to an
organization that has attacked the values that used to define the
Western Left and made hatred of the Jews as Jews and the destruction of
the Jewish state its primary goals. If these scholars have any
criticisms of Hamas at all, they did not voice them at a time when doing
so mattered.

It was probably only a matter of time before seven decades of leftist
antagonism to Israel would lead to waging political warfare in support
of an organization known for terrorist attacks against civilians,
religious fanaticism, and anti-Semitism of a most foul and familiar
sort. In summer 2014, that moment has arrived.

And "So what?" it might be asked. What does it matter that the
academic Left yet again criticizes Israel and supports the aims of its
enemies? In fact, it matters quite a bit, because political struggles
are ultimately battles about ideas and their meaning. What begins in the
universities and enjoys the prestige associated with them filters into
journalism, the highbrow journals of opinion, the editorials of the
media, and the policy think tanks in Washington. In the process, it
fosters at best a language of moral equivalence regarding Israel and
Hamas. It is also reflected in courses taught in the universities, which
in turn have an impact on coming generations. A refusal to speak
frankly about the ideas animating Hamas and other Islamist terrorist
organizations has become a litmus test for left-wing identity. The fear
of being called "Islamophobic" or "right-wing" has the effect of
silencing criticism among liberals who don't want to field criticism on
their left.

Moreover, now that the Republican Party's traditional support for
vigorous American leadership is under challenge from a neo-isolationist
right, it is all the more important that centrists in the Democratic
Party recognize and vigorously respond to the challenge from an
effectively pro-Hamas left. We need a renewed "militant democracy" in
the center of American politics and intellectual life, one that fights
totalitarian ideologies and movements no matter their source. Both
within the academy and in the world of politics and policy in
Washington, it is essential that there be much more frank speech about
the nature of groups such as Hamas. There are some welcome signs that
some in the political establishment are finding their voices about these
issues. In the academy the voices of "Historians Against the War" are
not a majority, but they shout the loudest and are well organized. For
those of us in the academy who take a different view, it would be most
helpful if more of our political leaders would also speak frankly on
these matters. The arrows of influence in the history of ideas and
politics can flow in both directions. It is important that they do so.

Jeffrey Herf is distinguished university professor in the
department of history at the University of Maryland in College Park and a
fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author most recently of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World
(Yale University Press, 2009). His essay "In Their Own Words, Why They
Fight: Hamas' All Too-Little Known Fascist Charter" can be found here. His essay "At War with Israel: East Germany's Enthusiastic Support for Soviet Policy in the Middle East" is forthcoming in the Journal of Cold War Studies.Source: http://www.meforum.org/4783/a-pro-hamas-left-emerges Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.